Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005888

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00579/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 10th of December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOLANKI

Between

MP
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr C. Rahman, Counsel (instructed Direct Access)
For the Respondent: Ms Clewley, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 16 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and/or any member of his family, should not be identified and are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant and/or his family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant (A) is a Sri Lankan national, born in 1965.
2. This is an appeal against First-Tier Tribunal (FtT) Judge Raymond’s decision, dated 9 November 2024, to refuse A’s appeal against the decision of the Respondent (R) to refuse his claim on protection and human rights grounds.
Factual Background
3. The background to the appeal is set out in the documents. The facts are summarised below.
4. The A is of Sinhalese ethnicity. He is a qualified medical doctor.
5. In 2001 he started to work at a hospital in Colombo as a Medical Officer.
6. In 2005 he saw a Tamil patient, JR, who became a regular patient thereafter. They became good friends.
7. He states that around 2004 to 2009 he decided to participate in rallies, picketing and protests in Sri Lanka. The authorities became aware of this. He says he received anonymous calls asking him to stop.
8. JR told him that his brother went missing around 2007 or 2008.
9. In February 2008 A saw a white van abduct JR. He saw a police officer in the van.
10. In 2011 JR’s mother met him at the hospital and asked for a statement from him to be lodged at the LLRC. He agreed to support her as he was an eyewitness and JR was a good friend. He met her solicitor a few days later at Watthala. The solicitor prepared an affidavit which he signed. In the same month they handed over documents to the LLRC. Whilst they were sitting in the waiting area photographs were taken of them. He was asked his name and he confirmed his name. He asked the individuals how they knew him and they explained that they met him at a protest. He wanted to ask why photographs were taken, but before he was able to do so they left.
11. In October 2014 A states he was abducted, blindfolded and taken to a building where he was tortured. Those that tortured him wanted him to provide a statement to nullify what he had said in his earlier statement given to the LLRC. He was also falsely accused of passing information to JR to carry out an attack in Welisara in 2006. He was told not to participate in protests. He was released in January 2015 when Rajapaksa was defeated.
12. Following that A went to Sweden for his studies in September 2016.
13. In June 2018 he returned to Sri Lanka. On 26 October 2018 Mahinda Rajapaksa returned to power.
14. On 4 November 2018 he states Mahinda Rajapakse supporters came to his house shouting, throwing stones, breaking windows and trying to break the gate. He heard two or three gunshots. The next morning he wanted to make a complaint to the police about this incident. However, before he was able to do so the police attended his house to inform him that was that there was a complaint against him and that he had to attend the station to provide a statement. When he went there, Mahinda’s supporters were there and accused him of being a Sinhalese who supported the LTTE and who had betrayed the country. He states that he was assaulted in front of the police station, and he ran inside the station. He says these individuals also went inside and assaulted him. The police did not attempt to stop them so he fled.
15. On 10 November 2018, he left Sri Lanka on a visit visa with his wife, ND (also a Sri Lankan national), and arrived in the UK. In the same month, on 26 November 2018, his sister informed him by letter that the police had attended his home to arrest him.
Procedural History
16. He claimed asylum in November 2018. His claim was refused by a letter dated 19 December 2023. The decision accepted his identity and nationality and his Sinhalese ethnicity. It was accepted that s8 behaviours were not present in his case. The decision did not accept his political activity or adverse interest from the authorities owing to perceived links with the LTTE. It was said he was not credible on these issues. It was made clear that if the material facts of his claim were accepted, state protection and relocation would not be available to him as he feared the state. He appealed this decision.
17. On 12 July 2024 the FtT heard his appeal. He argued that he was credible and qualified for protection and also that there would be a breach of his human rights by his return to Sri Lanka (Skeleton Argument 7/7/2024 (ASA)).
18. On 11 November 2024 his appeal was dismissed by FtT Judge Raymond. He sought permission to appeal.
19. Permission to appeal was granted by First-Tier Tribunal Judge Mulready in a decision dated 6 December 2024. The decision reads as follows:
1. The application is in time.
2. The grounds assert the judge erred in their assessment of the Appellant’s evidence; failed to provide adequate reasons; and made various material factual errors in their recording of the Appellant’s evidence and in the findings made.
3. The judge gave detailed commentary on the evidence, however he made a number of findings which do not seem to be supported by the evidence or appropriate for the taking of judicial notice, such as that police will “inevitably” make arrests at demonstrations anywhere in the world which are provoking a robust police response, and that the confidentiality obligation owed by the Appellant, a doctor, to his patients, must “surely” be overridden when the Appellant’s life was at risk. Those findings were then used to contribute to an adverse credibility finding against the Appellant.
4. The grounds include a list of points with reference to specific paragraphs in the Decision, which taken together do arguably raise concerns as to whether the judge gave this protection appeal the most anxious scrutiny and whether all material findings were open to him on the evidence.
5. The grounds identify arguable errors of law material to the outcome of the appeal, and so permission is granted on all grounds.
Submissions
20. The matter came before the Upper Tribunal in an error of law hearing on 16 September 2025.
21. The grounds of appeal are settled by Mr Rahman and dated 22 November 2024. The grounds of appeal are not particularised well. This did not assist the Tribunal.
22. At the hearing before me, I had (a) an FTT appeal bundle which ran to 73 pages (AB), (b) Home Office bundle which runs to 66 pages (RB), (c) grounds of appeal to the FTT with attachments which run to 30 pages, (d) a composite Upper Tribunal hearing bundle which runs to 199 pages (CB).
Findings and Reasons
23. I have addressed below two grounds of appeal. Whilst several issues are raised in the grounds of appeal, I consider that the issues set out below are sufficient to find that there is a material error of law and that the decision must be set aside.
24. At para. 5(xi)(xii) of grounds of appeal it is said, with reference to §75 and §155 of the decision, the Tribunal have erred in stating that A’s friend/patient, JR, was arrested in March 2007. A’s evidence was that JR was abducted in February 2008. It is said that the Judge has misunderstood that on 19 March 2007 the police arrested A’s friends brother (Ja R), not A’s friend (JR).
25. I note that the Judge sets out A’s account of JR’s brother going missing in 2007 or 2008 at §§46-48 of the decision.
26. At §§63-80 the Judge summarises the documents obtained from Sri Lanka. Significantly the following is said in summarising the document:
• “§75(5) – JR ‘was arrested by the military intelligence unit on 19 March 2007’ because he had direct links with the claymore mine attack.
27. At §155 the Judge states: “I find it incredible that the Appellant has not sought to access any social media evidence of his claimed friendship with JR from 2005 to February 2008. The latter being when the Appellant says JR was abducted. Although the 2018 police report says it was on 19th March 2007 that JR was arrested, which presumably is meant to tally with when he is supposed to have been ‘disappeared.’”
28. The Judge then goes on to make the following findings in respect of JR’s brother, the date JR went missing and the documents in this regard:
• “131. His detention in 2014 being long after his good Tamil friend JR is supposed to have been ‘disappeared’ in 2007/08, as a suspected LTTE activist. … There being conflicting evidence as between the Appellant, and the court/police documentation he relies upon, as to when exactly the disappearance of JR is supposed to have occurred.”
• “202. The 2018 report says that JR was arrested on 19th March 2007, whereas the Appellant says he was abducted in February 2008. It is not possible to reconcile this disparity in my view.”
• “203 . Whilst both reports focus upon the surveillance of the Appellant, they also emphasize the role of JR.”
• “207. Yet throughout the 13 years concerned the only two players on the scene are the Appellant and JR.”
• “208. I find this to be completely incredible.”
• “209. There is no mention of JR’s brother concerning whom the evidence of the Appellant is that he has also been ‘disappeared.’”
• “210. I find it to be a very striking feature of the two reports, that the roles of the Appellant and JR, the only two players on the scene throughout the 13 years, fit like a glove into the asylum narrative.”
29. Ms Clewley sensibly accepted before me that the Judge had made an error in stating JR went missing in March 2007, when it was JR’s brother who had gone missing on this date. However, she said this was not material in light of the other findings made. Whilst I note the decision is lengthy, I am of the view that the error on this issue is a material error of law for the reasons I set out below.
30. Firstly, I note that A’s evidence clearly stated that JR was abducted in February 2008 (see appeal witness statement 7/7/2024 §8, see RB 60-61 AIV 116-117) that JR told him his brother went missing around 2007/2008 (RB 59-60, AIV 112-115) and that he heard it was in relation to the claymore mine attack (see RB 66 post-interview corrections dated 16 August 2023).
31. Secondly, the Judge has plainly erred in looking at the documents from Sri Lanka. I have considered the documents at length. I note that the document dated 19 November 2018 clearly refers to JR and his brother, Ja R. It is clearly stated that it was the brother, Ja R, that was arrested on 19 March 2007 for his links to the claymore mine attack (see AB p47). The findings of the FtT Judge, which I have set out at §§26-28 of this decision above, are plainly mistaken. The Judge has clearly made a mistake of fact in stating that the 2018 report shows JR was arrested in March 2007 and that this raises an inconsistency. The Judge has erred in stating that the documents fail to mention the brother and in stating that the documents focus entirely on A and JR.
32. I have regard to R (Iran) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982 at 9(vii) (‘R (Iran) & Ors’) and consider this to be a material error. It can be seen from the decision that the Judge attached a lot of weight to this issue, as there is repeated reference to this issue throughout the decision. This mistake has plainly impacted the assessment of the documents, which are said to be produced by a lawyer in Sri Lanka, and the assessment of A’s credibility.
33. At para 5(iii) and (viii) of the grounds of appeal, it is said (with reference to paragraph 95 and 82 of the decision) that A was able to leave and enter Sri Lanka between 2016 and 2018 as there was no arrest warrant for A. A was visited at his home in November 2018 and there was interest in him at this stage, after Rajapaksa returned to power.
34. Ms Clewley highlighted to me that §82 of the decision is the FtT’s summary of the refusal letter and I note §95 is the FtT’s summary of the oral evidence. Ms Clewley referred me to §§182-193 of the FtT decision and stated that the Judge had found on these issues that A would have been unable to travel as he stated he had in the context of his history with the authorities.
35. I note that at §§189-193 of the decision the Judge finds that even if an arrest warrant had not been issued for A, it was incredible that someone with his alleged profile would not have been stopped by the authorities at Colombo airport in 2018 and that A would have been identified on his return in 2018.
36. I note that the relevant country guidance decisions on Sri Lanka address the ability of individuals being able to enter and leave Sri Lanka. I set out below the relevant parts of the country guidance:

GJ (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG (Rev 1) [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC)
• 309. Those with Sri Lankan passports returning on scheduled flights will be able to walk through Colombo airport without difficulty, unless their names are on a "stop" list, by reason of an outstanding Court order or arrest warrant. Those on a "watch" list are not stopped at the airport but will be monitored and if considered to be a destabilisation risk, may be picked up from their home area.
• 310. There are no detention facilities at the airport. Although individuals may be interviewed at the airport by the security forces, the Sri Lankan authorities now aim to move returnees relatively quickly out of the airport and on their way to their home areas and to verify whether they have arrived there soon afterward. If the authorities have an adverse interest in an individual, he will be picked up at home, not at the airport, unless there is a "stop" notice on the airport computer system. There is no evidence that strip searches occur at the airport; the GOSL's approach is intelligence-led rather than being driven by roundups and checkpoints as it was during the civil war.

KK and RS (Sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka CG [2021] UKUT 00130 (IAC)
• (18) Only those against whom there is an extant arrest warrant and/or a court order will appear on the stop list. Returnees falling within this category will be detained at the airport.
• (19) Returnees who appear on the watch list will fall into one of two sub-categories: (i) those who, because of their existing profile, are deemed to be of sufficiently strong adverse interest to warrant detention once the individual has travelled back to their home area or some other place of resettlement; and (ii) those who are of interest, not at a level sufficient to justify detention at that point in time, but will be monitored by the authorities in their home area or wherever else they may be able to resettle.
37. The findings made by the Judge in respect of the likelihood of the A being stopped at the airport, in the absence of an arrest warrant bring issued for him at that stage, are made without reference to the country guidance. There is in fact no reference to the country guidance in the decision of the Judge. This is a material error of law; see for example DK (Serbia) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1747.
38. Whilst Ms Clewley did defend the decision on other grounds, I cannot say that the decision of the FtT would have inevitably been the same had the above errors not occurred. This is because credibility is a holistic assessment. I therefore find these errors to be material.
Notice of Decision
39. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that there are material errors of law in this decision. The decision is set aside.
40. Considering the errors of law in this decision and having regard to 7.2 of the Practice Statement of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, I am of the view that it is appropriate to remit this matter to the FtT (to be heard before any Judge aside from Judge Raymond).

P. Solanki

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 December 2025